Tanzania Case Law

attorney general of republic of uganda and another v awadh and others 2013 eacj 143 15 april 2013

Court

EACJ

The Reference was time barred because the acts complained of, including detention, were capable of being located in time and the two-month limitation period began when the acts were first effected. The EAC Treaty does not recognize continuing violations as an exception to the limitation period, nor does it empower the Court to extend or waive the prescribed time limit. Legal certainty requires strict application of Article 30(2).

Source excerpt

• Limitation of actions
• Continuing violations
• Legal certainty
• Extradition
• Detention

Read case analysis

omar and ors v ag republic of kenya and ors application 4 of 2011 2011 eacj 12 1 december 2011

Court

EACJ

The Court held that the alleged Treaty violations, including detention, are continuous in nature and cannot be subjected to mathematical computation of time. Therefore, the Reference is not time-barred and is properly before the Court.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Limitation of actions
• Continuing violations
• Detention
• Treaty interpretation

Read case analysis

zitha and another v republic of mozambique communication 361 of 2008 2011 achpr 93 3 march 2011

Court

ACHPR

The African Commission held the disappearance was a continuing violation but found the complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies and unreasonable delay.

• Enforced disappearance
• Admissibility of communications
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Continuing violations
• Ratione temporis jurisdiction
• Admissibility-of-communications

Read case analysis